Saturday, November 29, 2014

Northern Europe is clearly one of the world’s most Godless regions. Yet, at the same time, the Catholic Church, while a minority denomination, is experiencing a revival that only Counterreformation popes could have dreamed of.

While vocations have dwindled in the west, the increase in Scandinavia is striking. 680 nuns in Scandinavia, making the proportion one nun for 880 Catholics in the region. In the US, the proportion is one in 1400 and many of those nuns are uber-liberals who have been severely criticized by recent popes.

In Sweden, there are 103,000 Catholics and 17 seminarians; by contrast, Vienna has 13 times as many Catholics, but fewer than 35 seminarians. So what is going on?

Apparently, lots of immigration from countries like Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, and Lithuania. But this doesn't explain what is happening in Britain where the number of seminarians has increased four-fold and practising Catholics now outnumber Anglicans.

It seems that the strong moral stand of the Catholic Church is one of the factors explaining these numbers. Mainline Protestant churches have caved on issues of sexual morality, now accepting same-sex unions and avoiding the issue of abortion.

There is something to be said for orthodoxy. Let us hope and pray that this spirit will flourish in North America as well, bringing new and fervent converts back to faith.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

From 1983, an interview between Bernard Nathanson and Henry Morgentaler. Both men were abortion doctors; both men aborted their own children; both men regretted those abortions. Nathanson changed from pro-abortion to pro-life and later converted to the Catholic faith. He said he carried the weight of all those deaths on his conscience. Morgentaler did not express remorse for his life, but died while a lawsuit was still pending in New Brunswick to allow federal funding for his abortion clinic in Fredericton.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Last Thursday night, President Obama issued his executive order that would grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Not calling it an "executive order", but a presidential memo, it is the same thing.

Obama stated that he had waited for Congress to present him with an immigration bill, and that they had simply not done this. No mention of the fact that the Democrats held both the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first two years of his presidency and that they had done nothing on the immigration issue during that time, when they had the ability to do so easily. Some Democrats offer the reason that Obama was intent on getting his health care bill through and that it was the pressing issue of those first years. This implies that he can't do two things at the same time, which was disproved recently in China when he was caught on camera, walking and chewing gum simultaneously.

Over the weekend, a headline caught my eye - that the Congress of American Bishops had approved of Obama's move on immigration.

It has long been known that the Catholic Congregation of Bishops wants an overhaul of the immigration law, and there is no doubt that such an overhaul is necessary. However, to approve of what Obama did on Thursday is to approve the ends, regardless of the means.

President Obama does not have the patience to wait for the newly elected members of the Senate and House of Representatives (both of which are now Republican majorities) and so he rammed through his executive order without even trying to work with them. Obama, more than any other president, has no will to work with the other side. As has been stated time and again, he is an ideologue who does not stoop to deal with the reality of issues. He prefers to rule by fiat.

Is this fair? Scott Johnson points out something that should be obvious:

The proposed executive action on immigration (or whatever name you want to give it) will allow [illegal aliens] who have US citizen or green-card children and who have been here for five years to apply for some kind of quasi-status and open market work authorization. That would allow them to work for a period of time at any employer, the authorization presumably renewable until they decide to leave or have an option for US permanent resident status (green card status). This, the administration tells us, is fair and just and Biblical – yada/yada.

But this option is explicitly NOT available to those in the US in a valid legal status. There are millions of people in the US who have temporary status – as students or temporary workers or researchers or as investors (lots of Koreans own businesses with E-2 investor visas, for example). These people – many of them have US citizen children and have been here five years. These people who have been here legally and not violated their immigration status – these people are explicitly NOT eligible for open market work authorization, renewable indefinitely.

Meanwhile, the newly elected Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, aims to launch a lawsuit against the federal government for acting in an unconstitutional manner. And there is plenty of evidence that he is correct. Obama himself has been recorded over twenty times, stating that he cannot change the law on immigration by himself and that it has to be changed by the legislature. Suddenly ten lawyers were found who told him that he could change the law by himself and so he went ahead.

But the consequences of his actions will be dire. Over the summer, 70 thousand children came across the border into Mexico. Most of them had been brought over by crooks who take large sums of money from their parents to bring them into the US, where they will be united with relatives who are already here. Each month, one thousand illegal immigrants come across the Texas border and the state of Texas is left to deal with the health issues of these people, and the task of relocating them somewhere. They have been told not to send them back. And who could do such a thing, knowing that they would face great danger to their lives if they were to be returned to Mexico?

The immigrants are coming from Mexico, Central and South America. And now a large group of Cubans are awaiting their flight to the US, since they feel reassured by Obama that they will be welcomed and cared for upon their entry into the US.

Yes, the immigration law is broken but executive order is not the way to fix it.

People coming to the US from countries, where their lives are in danger from drug cartel overlords, are seeking a country where the rule of law works. It is ironic that they come to the US, where the rule of law has just been overturned by the President himself. How long will the US remain the country they believe it to be, if the power of the president is allowed to run unchecked? What is to stop the next president, who may be Republican, from doing a similar thing on another issue?

As Ronald Reagan once said:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

The issue of immigration in the US is not just an issue about the 11 million illegal immigrants who have sought a new home in a new country. It is an issue about the overreach of the executive branch of government, something that the founders of the Constitution fought hard to prevent. The three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial are held in a fine balance in order to preserve individual freedoms. The USA is the only country in the entire world that is founded on such a principle of individual freedom.

What is at stake here is the very loss of that precious freedom by a President who thinks that he knows better than the elected officials of the government. The image of him chewing gum shows him as he really is, a man who is insolent toward those for whom he has no respect. His latest actions show that it is not just nations abroad that he does not respect; he does not respect his own country and its citizens.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Essure birth control, manufactured by Bayer, is a permanent non-surgical method of birth control. Metal coils are inserted into a woman's fallopian tubes, with the result that the woman's body produces tissue that grows through the coils, thus blocking the tubes. Eggs cannot travel down the tubes and no fertilization can occur.

Apparently, there are over 12,000 followers in a support group on a private Facebook page. The problem is that these women who have had problems with the method (from pain to migraine headaches to early menopause, cysts, and even organ puncture) cannot sure because Essure was given an FDA pre-emption.

Robert Jenner, an attorney with Janet, Jenner and Suggs in Pikesville said that “the idea behind preemption is that the companies that make approved devices get protection from the FDA and can’t be sued because the agency so heavily scrutinizes their devices.”

Why would a woman resort to this method of birth control? Since the method is permanent, why wouldn't she opt instead for a tubal ligation? (not that I am advocating that method either, just asking the obvious question). The very idea of metal coils inserted into a body is a horrific idea. I don't see why anyone would consent to this.

We deserve healthcare that won’t hurt us. Families deserve better than having unexpected medical problems they could have avoided. And ultimately, women deserve better than tiny metal coils that ruin their lives.

So if we are dredging up rape accusations against formerly famous old man, why not talk about the ones surrounding a former president who still wields considerable influence and who might, God help us, end up in the White House again in two years?

Matt Walsh on the allegations against Bill Cosby, while Bill Clinton gets a pass.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

When the city council of Nanaimo banned a Christian group from holding a conference, Ezra Levant made the issue known. He called for a petition to let the city know that they did not have the right to ban groups on the basis of religious identity.

When that didn't work, Ezra headed up a move to hire a lawyer who would sue the city for its actions. Well, that got results and the city caved. And the recent election brought in the only councillor who opposed this anti-Christian action and made him the mayor.

Kudos to Ezra Levant who fights for freedom of religion. Who would do this if Ezra didn't?

Saturday, November 15, 2014

This afternoon a young man came to the door, canvassing for Megan Leslie, the NDP member of Parliament here in Halifax.

I told him immediately that I could not support the New Democratic Party because they are pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage, neither position I support. He asked if I would reveal which party I did support. And I told him that my husband and I often have to destroy our ballot because there is no one for whom we can vote.

He then said "well, I guess you don't want one of these cards?" and I said no. As he turned to leave, his last words were "well, the Supreme Court has decided that these are so." I didn't have a chance to reply as he left quickly. I wished he had stayed for a moment longer, or perhaps more, because what I wanted to say was that the law is no defense of a moral position.

There have been many cases of bad laws throughout history. One has only to recall the life of William Wilberforce who spent his entire adult life, from his early twenties until the day he died, working to overturn the slave trade in England. And he finally succeeded, a lifetime battle of some 40-50 years.

So many people have no idea of history. They do not know that the slave trade was legal, that slaves were not considered "persons" under the law, that women were not considered "persons" either. And now the unborn are not considered "persons". Is it not possible that there will come a day when we also look at that law and say that it is a bad law?

I have heard this defense of abortion many times. While on the vigil of 40 Days for Life, many people who passed by would say that abortion was legal and that we should just get over it. But there is no evidence that what man passes as law is also moral. In fact, the evidence shows that the opposite has been the case in a number of important issues.

Saying that the decision of nine judges in one country is the reason why something is therefore right is ridiculous. Why do those nine people have the right to determine what is moral for the rest of the population? And in the case of abortion in Canada, those nine judges did not say that abortion was the legal right of women, but they removed the barriers to abortion granting women access to abortion throughout their entire pregnancy. Those judges also turned the issue back to Parliament and said that the House of Commons had the duty to impose some restrictions on abortion, something that they never did.

So much ignorance surrounds this subject. And so many people simply don't want to hear anything that isn't the mainstream opinion. I hope this young man thinks more seriously about this issue and does some searching on his own. It is truly frightening that our future is in the hands of people like him, who have swallowed the party line on this issue and many others.

A woman whose baby died in utero was advised by her doctor to go to the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin Texas to have the fetal remains removed. (something I would question, having had a miscarriage at 12 weeks, that resulted in profuse bleeding and shock).

She had been sitting in the clinic waiting room with others who were awaiting their abortion appointments when a woman nearby began sobbing. Mel comforted her, reassuring her that she didn’t have to go through with the abortion. Another woman in the waiting room overheard her words of hope and approached her, also crying.

Moved by these women’s pain, Mel opened up to them: she told them she would give anything to be in their places, because the much-wanted baby she carried inside her was already dead. Hearing this, one of the women stood up and announced that there was no way she was going to go through with her abortion.

At this point, a worker at the clinic burst into the waiting room. But rather than inquire about the expressions of grief and dread on the faces of the women she encountered there, she simply turned to Mel and commanded her: “Don’t talk to anyone!”

I emailed Tremonti asking that equal time be given to two women who would speak on the other side of this issue. After all, the CBC is the state broadcaster, completely paid for by our tax dollars. Why does Ms Tremonti get to present a show that gives one side only of this issue, when the country is split almost equally between those who are pro-choice and those who are not?

I suggested that Tremonti do a follow-up segment, and that she feature Andrea Mrozek and Stephanie Gray, both women who can present the pro-life viewpoint coherently and without bile.

One comment made by Erdman was particularly irksome; that the procedure of abortion should not be cloaked in moral terms, as it was a legal procedure. Do we really believe that the law determines what is moral or not? There have been many instances in history when laws have been repealed, precisely because they were proven to be bad laws, in fact laws that protected immoral actions.
One has only to recall that it was law in Nazi Germany to place Jews in concentration camps and to kill them, as they were not considered beings with the same rights as German citizens. Also, it is not so long ago that women did not have rights, but were considered the property of their husbands. And it should be commonly known that blacks were not considered human beings, but were considered chattel to be bought and sold as slaves.

So now the developing human being in the womb is given no rights. Its only protection is if it is wanted by its mother. How advanced a society are we that we now terminate those who are smaller and considered less deserving of life? One person has to die in order to provide another with her freedom.

As both women claimed that abortion should be legal, safe and available to all women who require it, there is still no discussion of what happens in an abortion. The termination of another life is never discussed; the woman is front and centre.

Yes, there are some abortions by women for reasons of health and because they really do not think they can manage another child. But the vast majority of abortions are done because women do not want to take the consequences of their sexual activity. We won't even bring in the men here, that is a whole other issue of irresponsibility.

Abortion, for the most part, is our society's way of dealing with unfettered sexual activity. Everyone thinks it is their right to be sexually active and they do not think it fair that they should be burdened with the consequences of those actions. Therefore, the baby has to go. It is only right and fair; why should anyone be burdened with the new life created by their behaviour?

As for the CBC, they need to be held accountable by the taxpayers for their activity. I agree with Brian Lilley that the CBC should be de-funded and made to stand on its own merit. Let's see if it could last for any time at all without our tax dollars.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

From an email this morning from http://www.matercare.org/
(an organization of Catholic health professionals dedicated to the care of mothers and babies, both born and unborn, in the third world.)

Tetanus is an incurable disease that infects the body through broken skin or wounds. The umbilical cord stamp of newborn babies is a possible entry point and makes them especially susceptible. It is best prevented through immunization with the tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccine........

Our concern and the subject of this discussion is the WHO/UNICEF sponsored tetanus immunization campaign launched last year in October ostensibly to eradicate neonatal tetanus. It is targeted at girls and women between the ages of 14 – 49 (child bearing age) and in 60 specific districts spread all around the country. The tetanus vaccine being used in this campaign has been imported into the country specifically for this purpose and bears a different batch number from the regular TT. So far, 3 doses have been given – the first in October 2013, the second in March 2014 and the third in October 2014. It is highly possible that there are two more doses to go.

Giving five doses of tetanus vaccination every 6 months is not usual or the recommended regime for tetanus vaccination. The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone - Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.

When tetanus is laced with HCG and administered in five doses every 6 months, the woman develops antibodies against both the tetanus and the HCG in 2 – 3 years after the last injection. Once a mother develops antibodies against HCG, she rejects any pregnancy as soon as it starts growing in her womb thus causing repeated abortions and subsequent sterility.

WHO conducted massive vaccinations campaigns using the tetanus vaccine laced with HCG in Mexico in 1993 and Nicaragua and Philippines in 1994 ostensibly to eradicate neonatal tetanus. The campaign targeted women aged 14 – 49 years and each received a total of 5 injections.

What is downright immoral and evil is that the tetanus laced with HCG was given as a fertility regulating vaccine without disclosing its ‘contraceptive effect’ to the girls and the mothers. As far as they were concerned, they had gone for an innocent injection to prevent neonatal tetanus!

Considering the similarity of the WHO tetanus vaccination exercise in South American with the Kenyan camping and with the background knowledge of WHO’s underhand population control initiatives, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association brought the matter to the attention of the Bishops and together sort audience with the Ministry of Health with only one request; that the tetanus vaccine being used in this campaign be tested to ensure it was not laced with HCG before the 2nd round of immunizations in March. The Ministry of Health declined to have the vaccine tested.

With great difficulty, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association managed to access the tetanus vaccine used during the WHO immunization campaign in March 2014 and subjected them to testing. The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with HCG. This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.

When challenged in South America in the early 1990’s about the tetanus vaccine used in their camping being laced with HCG, WHO brushed off the claims as unfounded and asked for proof. When proof was provided by the Catholic based bodies in those countries, WHO claimed that the other components of the vaccine production process may have caused false positive results. When pushed further, they accepted that a few vaccines may have been contaminated with HCG during the production process. However, HCG is not a component nor is it used in the production of any vaccine let alone tetanus! It was only after antibodies against HCG were demonstrated in the women who were immunized with the laced tetanus vaccine that the matter was sealed. The immunized women have suffered multiple abortions and some have remained sterile. Do we have to wait until this point before action is taken?

Who is behind this? Which person or persons is driving the agenda of the World Health Organization? Like Margaret Sanger, they seem to conclude that the world needs a certain direction and they seem themselves as the enlightened ones who are up for the job.

What complete arrogance drives this organization, that it deems itself the arbiter of events in the Third World? This has been done before in initial experiments with hormonal birth control in Puerto Rico. Now it is Africa where there are just too many "brown people" and the rich white westerners think they have the solution to the African problem of poverty and disease.

Two completely different takes on facing death: Brittany chooses to end her life rather than endure more pain and suffering and to relieve her loved ones from her care.

And Nik Wallenda, staring death in the face, defiantly risks his own life for a stunt. His own father died doing just such a thing; after losing his balance, he grabbed the wire but then lost his grip and fell to his death.

Both stories are repellent to me. Both reveal a complete lack of faith in God or belief that God's will matters in our lives. Both take their lives into their own hands and do with them what they wish. Both are all about the "I".

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Today is the second last day of the vigil in Canada. If you haven't been out to pray at one of the vigil sites, perhaps there is still time to finish strong. I know of no other anti-abortion movement that is having the same effect as the 40 Days prayer vigil. Without confrontation, simply in prayerful witness outside the place where abortions are performed, this vigil changes hearts and minds and lives are saved. Both the babies' lives and the lives of their mothers, who are in greater danger of losing their souls.